because I made "x decision" everyone else is wrong

[BlaqueKatt]

you think you know someone....

I posted something on facebook titled "pro life logic 101" with the caption
"unborn babies must be born" "hungry children from low income families-oh I'm sorry you're hungry, maybe your parents should've though of that before having another child they couldn't afford" yes they really think like that.

I got this in response, after stating that not being able to care for a child is one of the most common reasons given for seeking abortion among women who give a reason*, and after he said he was pro-choice:

Again i was raised w/out food, begging for it at church steps w/ my mom, eating out of dumpsters and I'm about to graduate w/ my MBA, so all I'm saying is that this ad is not giving a good image to the cause and yes I had two younger siblings, we took care of each other and we are all fine. If it was my choice abortion would be legal, but controlled by the hospitals in terms of when it was allowed, fuck ignorant stupid selfish bitches, if that kid is not the cause of rape, or you are below the poverty line and the child will is deemed handicapped in some way then you have the kid. You want an abortion at that point, go get it an alley you dumb slut.

yup that's "pro-choice". An unplanned pregnancy, or knowing you are unable or unwilling to care for a disabled child automatically makes the woman a slut. I'm just ill.

*I have nothing but respect for a woman who has to make the difficult decision that aborting is better than bringing a child into poverty, or causing her other existing children to suffer. He claimed he had no idea most pro-lifers are anti public assistance, and neither would anyone else.

[Andara Bledin]

Misogynistic much?

I stopped reading my Facebook feed because I just couldn't stand the hate and ignorance. I've actually de-friended people over it, too.

^-.-^

[BlaqueKatt]

I've actually de-friended people over it, too.

Both him and the sole person who "liked" that response, were unfriended. Sadly this "charming" man can't figure out why he's single .

I mean who wouldn't want the lovely catch of:
Misogyny
Alcoholic(doing community service for his 4th DUI)
Drug abusing
food addict(he's admitted that due to always being hungry he now overeats junk)
that will only date strippers.

Sadly he doesn't realize he is proving the stereotype(and I hate that because I hate stereotypes)

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

I don't like the way some of these people think that an unplanned pregnancy never, ever, EVER has anything to do with the man who helped create it.

[BlaqueKatt]

I don't like the way some of these people think that an unplanned pregnancy never, ever, EVER has anything to do with the man who helped create it.

they also don't seem to understand that even if you carry to term and give up for adoption a child from an unplanned pregnancy, it's not like having a haircut.

You miss school or work for prenatal appointments, morning sickness(if you have it), and after giving birth no physician will clear you to work for a minimum of 4 weeks(usually 6) due to the risk of postpartum hemorrhage, in south carolina it's ILLEGAL for any woman less than 6 weeks postpartum to even drive.

What does the father of the unplanned child miss during pregnancy(if the woman carries the child to put it up for adoption), oh that's right, nothing, he can walk away and go on with his life as though nothing happened. Two people make a choice, only one gets any consequences-that's punishment for having sex.

[KabeRinnaul]

While I am personally pro-choice, I think you are unfairly demonizing the pro-life viewpoint.

The average pro-lifer is a religious person who believes in the existence of the soul, specifically a soul which is formed at conception. In their world view, this makes an unborn child, regardless of the developmental stage of the fetus, just as much a person as a child which has already been born. By their reasoning, aborting a child is morally the same as mercy killing that child as an infant.

[BlaqueKatt]

The average pro-lifer is a religious person who believes in the existence of the soul, specifically a soul which is formed at conception. In their world view, this makes an unborn child, regardless of the developmental stage of the fetus, just as much a person as a child which has already been born. By their reasoning, aborting a child is morally the same as mercy killing that child as an infant.

so suffering, and possibly starving to death is preferable to being sent to heaven without suffering? wow that's some serious logic fail that doesn't need deamonizing.

[KabeRinnaul]

so suffering, and possibly starving to death is preferable to being sent to heaven without suffering? wow that's some serious logic fail that doesn't need deamonizing.

Because by the moral standard in question, it's better to allow the child to live in a poor situation and hope for improvement, than commit what is, in their view, infanticide, to escape said situation. Basically, at what point is a situation so desperate that it would be better to kill your own child rather than force them to face it?

As to the primary argument of your response, it seems to be based on the assumption that a religious parent would rather their child die innocent rather than suffer in a sinful world. There's a simple reason that doesn't apply, and why believers (particularly those who subscribe to the idea of a culture of life) generally oppose things such as suicide and euthanasia as well - if a higher power (with our best interests in mind, according to most common beliefs) granted us life and an existence in this world as opposed to any other, then it must be for some purpose. Taking action to end a life is, therefor, going against said power's intent (and, presumably, our own best interest), and the most moral course is the continuation of life - despite what hardships may be faced.

[indigo]

KabeRinnaul - I can respect that point of view, although I don't think it should be a basis for laws. But with that point of view, would that person also support social welfare programs? If someone is pro-life and is all for helping that woman and child after birth, then they have my respect (I actually know several people who are like that).

However the "average pro-lifer" in my area doesn't support social welfare programs. They want that baby to be born, but don't want their money to go towards programs that help that baby to live after birth. That's when I classify them as hypocritical idiots.

Personally I hope to never have to get an abortion - but I don't see where the government has the right to tell me whether or not I can.

[siead_lietrathua]

i hate the term pro-life. can we just go back to calling it anti-abortion? since that's what it is and all.
if they were pro-life, they would be protesting the government JUST AS LOUDLY for better postnatal care, better orphanages, better foster care programs, food programs for starving children and better sexual health education for teens to prevent teen pregnancy. if they were pro LIFE they would work on improving the problems surrounding unwanted pregnancies instead of demonizing the pregnant women that may have no other choice.
all i see is anti-abortion.

[Andara Bledin]

If they were truly Pro-Life, they'd be protesting capital punishment.

Oddly enough, it's usually the liberal side (the ones who are typically Pro-Choice) who do that.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

Add in that many *don't* consider the "child" to be truly innocent. If a child must be baptized (or, in some cases, accept Jesus consciously, which of course takes even longer) in order to go to Heaven, then, on the belief that the unborn are just as much people as a ten year old, what happens to them when they're aborted?

[AdminAssistant]

Most Protestants would consider them "innocents" and saved by default. No idea about Catholics.

[TheHuckster]

Most Protestants would consider them "innocents" and saved by default. No idea about Catholics.

From what I understand, Catholics are "pessimistic" about an "unsaved" fetus, but leave it up to God to apply divine mercy. They don't say anything absolute: They might go to hell, they might not. Historically, miscarriages were met with great sorrow not only because of the obvious emotional loss but because they never had a chance to baptize the baby. There's also the concept of Limbo, but I think the Catholic Church considers that to be an arcane idea nowadays. Right now if you ask a priest where their unbaptized baby is, he'll likely just tell you, "To be honest, I don't know."

[Kheldarson]

Wasn't going to wade into this one, but the official stance of the Catholic Church on the state of unbaptized children can be found here. The relevant passage is 1261.

The summary is: We don't know, but Christ said to "let the children come to" Him, so it stands to reason they're prolly saved.